One can't help but be struck by the rush to military involvement by politicians of all countries and all persuasions. The contrast with the western treatment of the rest of the region could not be more stark. The Palestinian people have lived with occupation for 60 years, well over 1,000 died in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, settlements abound and Israel possesses nuclear weapons. I can't remember anyone calling for a no-fly zone in Gaza in winter 2008-09 when phosphorous bombs were used against a largely unarmed and defenceless civilian population.

Obama has not made a convincing case for the Libya action to Congress, Pletka said. A meeting he had with some lawmakers last Friday was too "last minute," she said, adding that he should have had an Oval Office address to explain the action to the public.

Obama said in Chile on Monday that Gaddafi "needs to go." He also said the United States will transfer control of the air assault on Libyan forces within days.

"There needs to be a plan about what happens after Gaddafi," Republican Senator Richard Lugar said. "Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all? President Obama, so far, has only expressed vague hopes."

I agree with Kucinich. We should have given this to congress even as the tanks were rolling into Benghazi's central square. That way, congress could have rapidly come to some sort of consensus without all that time consuming political maneuvering and jockeying that other less-effective branches of the government are plagued with.

Because, like Kucinich, when I want something done fast, cheap, and correctly, the first thing I think is 'Why don't we leave this in the hands of congress? What could go wrong?'

I wonder what the citizens of the countries who rammed this through the UN and spearheaded this attack think of their own leaders now.

__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

And this is exactly why Canadian planes are involved, to cement the F35 deal.

It seems both the US and Canada at least aren't exactly sure why we are getting involved with military action, personally i think that should be made that clear at the outset to avoid situations like a long term occupation of ground forces. (Which seems inevitable)

Quote:

After describing military action against Libya as “war” during a weekend meeting of world leaders in Paris, Prime Minister Stephen Harper worked the telephones with the opposition leaders to drum up support for the government’s motion.

The Liberals said Monday they would support it, but leader Michael Ignatieff expressed reservations about the fuzzy war aims of the international coalition arrayed against the Libyan regime.

“There is some ambiguity as to whether this is an action whose ultimate objective is regime change or whether it’s an action simply engaged on humanitarian protection,” Ignatieff told the Commons.

MacKay said the intent was to force Gadhafi to stop attacking his own people, but was silent on whether further military action would be required to oust the dictator.

U.S. President Barack Obama was equally opaque Monday. He said a coalition air campaign over Libya is not aimed at removing Gadhafi from power, but added that American policy remained that the Gadhafi “has to go.”

Yep, it is a bit too much like "business as usual". Mr. Obama repeats the tired old mantra of "brutal dictator killing his own people" just as Bush did with Iraq. In fact it`s the same story line we use anytime we see fit to invade a country or overthrow a government as we did to Iran in 1953 over oil. If we were really so concerned about human rights, then why are we not enforcing a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia for their incursion into Bahrain?

This has big oil, Haliburton written all over it and the "change" we got was "same shit, different asshole"....

It is interesting that Obama is even more "fuck you" than Bush. When Bush invaded Iraq, he went through the motions of congressional approval. Obama has not even done that much and has angered not only Republitards, but has alienated once strong supporters in the Democratic party......

Dennis Kucinich has suggested that Obama has committed an impeachable offense for this

No.

Frankly I don't think it is honest to compare a full fledged invasion of a country (based on a lie sold to the rest of the world) and a war that still rages after 10 years, with the enforcement of a no-fly zone (under NATO mandate) without boots on the ground.
Saddam was not killing his own people hiring cut-throats from Angola. Gaddafi is.

On the other hand Gaddafi's only mistake was to use planes and heavy weapons. He should have used machetes, no one would have bothered..like no one bothered for Darfur...or as Paolo points out for Palestine.
But why you criticize now when they do something? )

Besides that..you would seriously have let Gaddafi slaughter everyone? WHy? The man has been insane for decades. In South Italy (I was born in ROme) there a constant stream of refugees escaping Lybia and wrecking their boats on our (Italian) shores so that they have to be rescued, then they ask asylum.
He even shot a couple of SCUDS our way (Italy) in '86..they landed in the sea, near the island of Ustica. The target was a coast guard base.

What REALLY pisses me off of Obama is Guantanamo, and the habeus corpus issue..that is a real shame.
But fuck Gaddafi...really.

I think that explains a lot of the rush for the European countries (if I recall correctly, quite a few have ties with the industry there). I'm not sure how much of a connection we have (besides one we could create if we put boots on the ground).

To be completely honest, if we manage to keep our own ground soldiers uninvolved (probably not... we already have a troop transport in the area), I could see this being a much better situation than Iraq or Afghanistan. There's a legitimate revolution occurring that we should have helped earlier to back it up this time. Just keep our soldiers out of there.

Yep, it is a bit too much like "business as usual". Mr. Obama repeats the tired old mantra of "brutal dictator killing his own people" just as Bush did with Iraq. In fact it`s the same story line we use anytime we see fit to invade a country or overthrow a government as we did to Iran in 1953 over oil. If we were really so concerned about human rights, then why are we not enforcing a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia for their incursion into Bahrain?

This has big oil, Haliburton written all over it and the "change" we got was "same shit, different asshole"....

It is interesting that Obama is even more "fuck you" than Bush. When Bush invaded Iraq, he went through the motions of congressional approval. Obama has not even done that much and has angered not only Republitards, but has alienated once strong supporters in the Democratic party......

Dennis Kucinich has suggested that Obama has committed an impeachable offense for this

My friend, Republicans are not angry, they are rejoicing! This is a wonderful tool (for them) to use to get a Rep back in the White House. They would've done the same, apart from the Congressional route. We're going to hear some of the most hypocritical bullshit ever next election debate from their side about this conflict, and the Amerikan people are going to buy it hook line and sinker.

One thing though, I don't care how much Kucinich blabbers on and on about, I live in Ohio and can tell you this guy is one of the most utterly pathetic politicians there are. He has called for impeachment more than once, and not just against this president. Don't give his opinion any more credit that bush, palin, or tea baggers.

Pull the USS Mount Whitney out, let the 'coalition' fall apart, and let the Europeans have the war they pushed so hard to have. Then we can do exactly what they do: Point and laugh when it all goes to pot, and bitch that we aren't getting the lucrative oil contracts now that someone else's military has done all the hard work (even as we continually criticize).

If nothing else good comes of this, at least I can laugh the next time a Euro (or mini-American) tells me that all my country cares about is using force to protect the oil.

While I totally sympathize with your point about the ineptitude and lethargy of our congress to act on anything in a timely manner, I do have one question for you. Is it your position that it is acceptable to disregard Constitutional law anytime it proves inconvenient? If so, just where would you draw the line?

Flexibility. You draw a line for each individual case. It sucks, but it's the only way.

To draw yet another 'Do not cross' line without regard to circumstance is just as bad as drawing any other 'Do not cross' line - you're just setting yourself up to cross it again.

Folks can't say for a second that if Obama had brought this before congress it would have passed on time to do any good. We'd have ALL sorts of congressmen using it for cheap political points. Boehner would be up at his pulpit crying again, Palin would be telling us she can see Libya from her house. Bachmann would be telling us that we shouldn't be bombing a country in Australia because they came to America's aid during the reign of Charlemagne (and her people would believe her). And they'd ALL be bitching about the cost of a drop in the bucket even as they refuse to address entitlements because that may cost them votes.

__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Ugly picture. Especially when such tyrant(s) can pick and choose who is worthy of protection. Of course...who can pay..or can be robbed.

On the other hand you cannot really be seriously supporting the idea of just letting an army of mercenary kill everybody without moving a finger.

As for Obama he did nothing wrong...this is no war or invasion...consider it a rescue...with Tomahawks. One million a shot.
But then if you consider that only the Afghan campaign runs at 2 billion a WEEK...